But hold on a minute, don't we have a Statistical Division in UN-DESA who is mandated and who by the way is already doing the same work we (at DPADM) are being forced to get into now?
Does Ms. Haiyan Qian know about a UN Secretary-General's Task Force (based inside DESA) called MDG GAP Task Force?
Does Qian know about UN Statistical Commission ?
Does Qian know about a UN Initiative called "Partnership on Measuring ICT for Development"?
Does our guru of GAID Sarbuland Khan know about MDG GAP Task Force ?Well since these leaders have no clue of what they want and no vision whatsoever, as usual let's give them a hand:
http://www.un.org/esa/policy/mdggap/mdggap_matrix_technology.html
Indicators 8.14, 8.15 and 8.16 under Target 8.F provide a measure of penetration of new technology in developing countries, but they do not allow monitoring of global efforts to improve availability of information and communications technology, including the contribution of the private sector. While Target 8.F makes explicit reference to information and communications technology, it contains a more general reference to the availability of “new technology”.
The lack of a numerical target restricts the possibility of monitoring the MDG commitment on technology. Defining a numerical target on information and communications technology is difficult given the fast pace of technological innovation in this sector and the number of supplementary goods and services, mainly software applications, required to gain proper access. Consequently, the issue is how to define a numerical target that captures the specific characteristics of the sector and helps to answer the following question: are countries on track to meet the target of improving access to information and communications technology (ICT)?
http://www.itu.int/ITU-D/ict/partnership/material/CoreICTIndicators_e_rev2.pdf
Staff from member organizations of the Partnership on Measuring ICT for Development and the United Nations Statistics Division (UNSD) provided valuable information and suggestions, in particular: Martin Schaaper and Colin Webb from the OECD, Albrecht Wirthmann from Eurostat and Ralf Becker from the UNSD.
2 comments:
It is most extra-ordinary that these days DPADM seems to be completely ambivalent or devoid of any strategic thinking in determining its programme priorities. This is so because DPADM itself has initiated a survey in UNPAN to asses country or people responses to priorities of work in public administration. If the result of this most recent UNPAN survey is any guide, it s citizen engagement and not IT in MDG or whatever is the preferred choice of work for most respondents from around the world. Furthermore, fomeone must also tell DPADM/DESA that ICT is not public administration, it is at best a tool of public administration.
Public adinistration is about institutions, tools and prcesses etc. that help establishing norms and facilitate delivery of services in amanner that is equitable, acountable and transparent. What DPADM needs to focus on is to explore options that can fulfill these objectives.
Running after ICT by igoring the core issues of public adminstration such as the above will be like asking a handy man to build a house without the help of an engineer.
It is sad to see that DESA management is tolerating if not tacitly encouraging DPADM to fix its work programme around the so called "expertise" of its Director and not the other way around - which is to get the Director to focus on and implement the mandate of the Division.
At first this blog was entertaining and something like a wake-up call to people in DESA. While most (if not all) issues that get space here are relevant and in fact worthy of discussion they way it is written is not in a manner of discussion but like a diatribe of accusations and complaints.
There should be a way to make this discussion more constructive and more meaningful. Exposes are usually a call for change or to cast light on something perceived as wrong.
The whole notion of getting an unscientific survey as to whether the US should bail out the UN was simply biased in a sense that the selected comments were in fact all negative. It also shows bad taste since the writer I assume works for the UN (DESA). Hey if you really hate the UN that much then leave and don't be a hypocrite about it since your are reaping benefits that are far more than what is usually offered outside.
Obviously the intent of this blow was to be a venue to air out what may be improved in the whole UN System. It's aim now seems to be how to keep things "explosive" or what not.
It's time to re-assess the purpose of this blog. I believe that Change is indeed needed in the system. But what is this blogs contribution to pushing for change aside from name-dropping people. Be more pro-active come up with recommendations. Act on it! NOT JUST BITCH about it. ACT!
Post a Comment